Akkappa vs Eakanath on 5 February, 2010

DATED THES THE 5'i'H DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010 2' T' ~

PRESENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH A
DHARWAD.

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE K.1,;MANJU--l:\IhRl'lTH.--lI,'4   

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUsT1CE,e:lARAviNp KUMAR.,;""  

Miscellaneous First Appea1--l\le1v--5999 ofl2eo4 

Between :

1.

Akkappa  .

S / 0. Basavanneppfi Sulianpufi,    2

Age. 50 years',   ' 
R/0. Gokakl E'a1:ls",_.
T€i- Gokfikg. _   
Belgautn. ~

Paravvav C t__    
W / 0. Akketppa Sultafxpuri}.

Age. 4-5 Years, V V l'  
Occ,,.}Nil,< ''

 "  R/o._ lGC2l~:ak»t.1§'a1ls,  ---- ~ "
_ .Gokak,_  
 _B'elgauz_1L_ T ~ 

Clalfhant  2 in the
court offinstance Appellant

C '  in the "High Court.

Appellants

ll    M.C. Mastiholi 85 Santosh. S. Hattikatagi, Adv.)



And :

1. Ekanath
S /o. Ganapathrao Pawar,
Occ. Business,
R/o. Shindikurbet,
Taluk. Gokak,
Belgaurn. 

2. The United Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch, Bus-stand,
Tal. Gokak.

   'Respondents

(By Sri. L.B. Mannodar;  £c.{ri12'2i;R_1»§,Vi's«:1.)

This Miscellaneous .Firs?__"Appe:al 'isfiled '-Ugsec. 173(1) of MV
Act against the judgrfietrtand"award dated;--"06/I35/2004 passed in
MVC. No. 1395 /2000" on~.t.he 'file ._of--.the.."learned Civil Judge [Sr.Dn.)
8:. AMACT, Gokak, {_ 'partly 4al.Io.vving' the claim petition for
cornpeiisation_and_ seekiirig e_nh_an_ce1*11engtV_of compensation.

This appealconiingtjon"for-i'inal hearing this day, Aravind
Kumar, J ., deliveredl fhelfollowiings»: -

 -  V QDGMENT

__This"is"agic»lairn'ant's appeal seeking enhancement on not

3v«1a,_,,p'eing satishfiedV_v§iiltihi::the judgement and award dtd. 06/ O5 / 2004

 in M'\'¢A.'I.N0. 1395/ 2000 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Gokak.

4j..'_l'vi'h.el"'2:_.s narrated by claimants before the Tribunal is not

H  Hence, without dwelling upon the facts of the case, we

4%/.



are examining the correctness and legality and award passed in

the above MVC. No. 1395/2000.

2. The claimants contended that on accounte-f  of"  

Pundalik Akkappa Sultanpuri, who is  soiniof 

and 2 on 26/04/2000 in a road traéffic accident  peti'tio'ni:"'g

seeking compensation was filed. The    gotiiegcamined
as P.W.1 and examined one Irappa  was P.W.2,
who was the eye--witness to  of their claim,
claimants got  ito  did not lead
any oral evidencetii\\\,-ipinsnrancfi policy of the
vehicle  came to be marked as

Ex.R--1.

'  Qn consideringifliei pleadings, evidence on record and

subirhi'ssio_n's   Tribunal by its judgment and award dtd.

05/ allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a

-<i.i.i'_cornp.ensationvicf Rs. 3,44,000/-- to be paid by the respondents

 severally with interest at 7% pa. from the date of

¢/i



petition till realisation. It is this award, which is now challenged in

the present appeal by the claimant seeking enhancement.

4. We have heard the learned counsels appearingfoirl 'pa'irt.ies-,  _

It is contended by the appellants that the '§ribunal"ought:  have' 

taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,t)3OOshlo1ild::l1_av=:ve Al

computed the compensation payab1e»ato..__the legal heirs:
accordingly. Having not done so theitiliiare in this aiplpeallifgseeking
enhancement. Per contra,   icoiinsel appearing for
respondent would subrnit  taken into

consideration the evifdengcel placed bieforewit 'avnd has awarded the

compensationiiwhicihellaridaflaasonaljle and accordingly prays
that appeal be ldismissedf   

fl

 4. Hai(ing.heard" learned counsel for parties, the point
arises for _cion.si..deration is;
 ._  award passed by the Tribunal is in

granting _ vcornpensation of Rs. 3,44,000/- is just and

lii"'...ul'reasonable or the claimants entitled for any

 A ..jerinan,cement? And if so, to what amount?"

W



5. It is seen from the perusal of judgment and award as also

the evidence let in by the claimants that deceased was worlgingiiaps

a maistry from past two years prior to the date of  _

getting a salary of Rs. 6,000 / ~. However, in the crossreriéaminationxl "  

it is admitted by the Witnesses i.e., the:=.AfatheI;n.l

Salary Certificate had not been proc'iuc__ed to..demon5~trate:'_that;  

was being paid Rs. 6,000/- salary.  begvveighed
from the point of View of wha't:has   thevpetition and
the probable income that Cie(.:_ep_as¢.=;rjV   the time of
accident.   we are of the
opinion that the  during his life time
While   Rs.4,000/- per month.
Accordingly, v\ie«holdl that was earning Rs.4,000/ -- per

month.

 .6;ll  compensation to be awarded under the

 v¢i""l=1'eading loss of .income to the dependants, if the income is taken as

~ / -- per month, the deceased being a bachelor and who was

l~--laged'--ai:~o1it"A_«2l years as per the post--mortem report, which is at

H 'l:Ex..ll?;5,lgwe are of the opinion that 50% is to be deducted towards

fix



his personal expenses and in doing so the monthly income arrived

at is Rs.2,000/--- per month. We find from the order of Tribunal

that, the Tribunal has applied 18 as the appropriate multiplier

based on the aged of deceased. This finding is erroneous«~~si'i&1cee-the" 

age of parents have to be taken into consideration andas  the 

age of the mother being 45 in View of  fact. that  

husband being 50 and that of the _ deceased'-.at  

mother, who is claimant No.2, is taléeriiand We._ll'inr.l[=
dictum of the Sarala Verma'"s~..V_case'"lthei..:ljappr_opriate"multiplier,
which is required to be applied liwouldilbe  'accordingly by

applying the multiplier.y:V<'3:-f. 14',  tota*l'_j_comp'ensation payable

under the heee,dingliloss.. of theldependantga would be Rs.
3,536,000/« i.e.i"«(Rs.4',o'0o/2]'i~2.ei;'2,0oox12x 14). Hence, the total
compensation payable  heading loss of income to the

dependantsilwould be Rs. 3';36i0O0 / --.

 We"F1nd_'ithVatV..~under the conventional heads a sum of

 v.:liRs;i3!O,00(i)',--*.;  awarded by the Tribunal. This being on the

 We  it just and proper to award Rs. 30,000/~ in

 substi'tiutionf.--'to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the

 are entitled in all for a sum of Rs. 3,66,000/-- in this

§(,



appeal. Accordingly, the award of compensation is enhanced from

Rs. 3,414,000/-- to RS. 3,636,000/--.

passed»

(1)
(ii)

Hence, the following order is

ORDER

The appeai is allowed in part.

The compensation as awarded ‘toy ‘the
Rs.3,44,000/– is enhanced A.’i3,6:6,{‘.p).()D,/e

carry interest at 6% p.a. the date._of_: petition’ till ‘V

date of payment. .=pxOr1 there_”b’eing oniyaa ..vrr1argina1
increase, we do not proposertio orderfor deposit being
made andehence aj1noLi~nt:.ޤha11 be released

fc::rthwithTjdin_& _theWc1aimants together with F

proportionate’ « .

N0 costs. v

sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE